"5000 damage is absurd, but 50 damage is far to low; that means there must be..."

Critkeeper··2 votes·1,176 views

"a number between 50 and 5000 which is balanced, so we can find that number by iteratively nerfing and buffing and collecting feedback until we reach it"

An argument I've heard from too many game designers. Let me make another argument with exactly the same form:

"20 degrees is too low, 150 degrees is too high; that means there must be a number of degrees between 20 and 150 which will cause this needle to balance perfectly on the tip of this thumbtack. So we can find that number by iteratively nudging it with our fingers and watching what happens."

Theoretically? Yeah. Practically? Nope.

What we can conclude from that is that while this kind of an argument can give you an idea of whether or not a "balanced" number for the ability exists, it doesn't tell you whether or not you will be able to find that number in a reasonable amount of time by iteratively nerfing or buffing, or whether or not that state of balance will be stable if other aspects of the game change minutely.

6 Comments

Pyrobob44 votes

Sooo... You're either suggesting that balance shouldn't even be attempted, because it is too hard to find.

Or that the best way to approach finding balance is to leave everything the way it is while we do some complicated math to figure out exactly where it is.

Critkeeper1 votes

I'm suggesting we do some math to figure out an iterative process will produce a state of balance in a reasonable amount of time, rather than just assuming it will.

And use that information to ensure that new abilities or champions aren't created that intrinsically resist balance via iterative process.

KSHarrison3 votes

It depends upon the context of the comment, imo. Some abilities won't ever put a champion in a good spot if that's not the line of change it needs. There's the idea of relevance, for example you can adjust the mana cost on Urgot's W all day and I don't think it would put him in a better spot. Then there's the idea of being healthy, for example adjusting Urgot's Q damage; I don't think there's a number for the Q damage where Urgot is both balanced and healthy.

The most balanced champion in the game, if it's unhealthy, is by definition unbalanced because it leads to certain scenarios where the champion is OP. Poppy is an example of this because if you ever buffed her to where her weak early/late game were in proportion to the strength of her late game, she would be unhealthy and considered OP.

So I think the quote is an oversimplification, but it may have worked in the context of its use or as a qualitative example. Design processes take place over weeks; words are spouted in a matter of seconds. Words don't always have the advantage of considered introspection and are subject to other factors such as time and context. You can almost always find an angle of criticism for words, so holding anyone's words to a high standard in an informal setting is unfair.

Worgslarg2 votes

3,141.

YGW Caspie2 votes

Actually there's more to abilities than just raw damage and abilities can be nerfed in ways that balance it without changing damage. You can nerf range, duration, radius, cooldowns, resource costs, and even cast time. If Riot had to balance just damage it wouldn't be so bad but there's way more variables than that.

For example let's look at: Morgana

At the moment she is still considered a strong pick although she recently dropped off competitive play a bit, I think she's still seeing play but a lot less than before the nerf.

  •  **Black Shield**
       Base shield health reduced to 70/140/210/280/350 from 95/160/225/290/355. 
    
  • ** Soul Shackles** Base magic damage reduced to 150/225/300 from 175/250/325. Total possible magic damage per target reduced to 300/450/600 from 350/500/650.

These were the nerfs and direction Riot chose to take but there is definitely alternate ways to nerf a champion. For example they could of nerfed the duration of her Black Shield from 5 seconds to 3 seconds, meaning you have to be more timely with Black shields as well as adds a counterplay window.

Her Q which is a 3 second duration (few abilities still have 3 seconds) is always brought up from time to time, as well as the hitbox of the Dark Binding. So, yes they could fix the hitbox which essentially nerfs it by making it easier to dodge. They could also nerf the duration to 2 seconds but lower the cooldown so you can use it more often but it's less of a game winning bind situation and requires your team to follow up in a more effective manner, but right now it's very forgiving because it's 3 seconds of reaction time to capitalize on.

They could even decrease the tether time on her ult which would buff that ability to compensate for a second off her Q duration. So Morg hits a Q and it now only lasts 2 seconds but then she walks up and ults but only has to wait 2 seconds before her ult does the 2nd portion damage + root. Making it easier for her to combo but less problems with just a single game winning bind.

There is plenty of ways for Riot to nerf champions without nerfing damage and yet still the majority of nerfs are damage and resource costs/cooldowns not to say that those don't work but sometimes I feel there are better directions and sometimes you need to nerf more than just damage.

I am however NOT a game designer or balance expert, all I have is years of experience playing and thinking about games. Also this is just a quick example because I know if you don't post quickly on these forums it hardly gets read.

BroteinSupreme1 votes

It's not hard in the slightest to balance champions, unless you're referring to coding. Riot's making it seem harder than it is.

Now I know how they got on the Fortune 500. Their employees don't do shit.

More from Gameplay

More by Critkeeper